Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Work in Progress

1 citations

Abstract

This work in progress investigates human interaction with an LLM-powered chatbot, presented as either a fellow human or a transparently disclosed AI collaborator, in a high-stakes decision-making simulation—the NASA Moon Survival Task. We will employ a one-way between-subjects design to examine how individuals’ collaboration and communication are influenced by the identity of their partner (AI vs. human). Specifically, we will evaluate individuals’ collaboration processes (i.e., collaborative behaviour and communicative dynamics) and outcomes, alongside their retrospective interaction experience and perceptions of the partner. We will also examine dyadic-level linguistic coordination during the interaction and conduct user profiling to uncover variations in AI collaborative benefits. We anticipate that this study will have four key impacts: safeguarding human-AI collaboration, democratising AI benefits, guiding model improvement, and making methodological contributions. The anonymised dialogues and associated data will be open-sourced upon study completion.

1
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

One-way between-subjects design using the NASA Moon Survival Task to compare behaviors, linguistic coordination, and perceptions in interactions with AI or human partners.

Study Type
Experimental Study
Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Collaboration processes, communicative dynamics, outcomes, retrospective interaction experience, partner perception, and linguistic coordination, with user profiling for AI benefit variations.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.